FIR copy requirement is directory, and source-based registration of a cognizable offence can sustain investigation.

Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as directory, because the duty to supply a copy of the FIR is procedural and non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown; on the facts, no prejudice was established. The Court also held that an FIR based on source information disclosing a cognizable offence can validly be registered and investigated under Sections 154, 156 and 157, and such investigation is not liable to be quashed merely on that technical ground. The quashing order was therefore set aside and the investigation was allowed to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement under Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to furnish a copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory so that its non-compliance vitiates the proceedings. (ii) Whether an FIR registered on source information disclosing a cognizable offence, and the resulting investigation under Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement under Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to furnish a copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory so that its non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

Analysis: The provision was examined in the context of the statutory scheme and the object of the procedure. The Court applied the settled test that the true legislative intent, the consequences of non-compliance, and the presence or absence of prejudice determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory. It held that the obligation to furnish a copy of the FIR is a procedural duty and that, unless prejudice or injustice is shown, every infraction does not invalidate the proceedings. The Court also found that no prejudice was demonstrated on the facts.

Conclusion: Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directory and non-supply of the FIR copy, in the absence of prejudice, does not vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether an FIR registered on source information disclosing a cognizable offence, and the resulting investigation under Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court considered the scheme governing registration of FIRs and investigation of cognizable offences, including the role of source information and the guidelines followed by the investigating agency. It held that the mere fact that the information was first developed through source material did not disable the agency from recording an FIR and investigating a cognizable offence. The High Court had quashed the FIR only on a technical ground without finding that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence. The Court therefore held that the quashing order was unsustainable.

Conclusion: Registration of the FIR and continuation of investigation were permissible in law, and the order quashing the FIR was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the quashing order was set aside, and the investigating agency was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in FIR registration does not invalidate the proceedings unless it causes prejudice, and source-based registration of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence can sustain investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---